[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 00/35] SEV-ES hypervisor support
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:15:14PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky <>
> This patch series provides support for running SEV-ES guests under KVM.

From the x86/VMX side of things, the GPR hooks are the only changes that I
strongly dislike.

For the vmsa_encrypted flag and related things like allow_debug(), I'd
really like to aim for a common implementation between SEV-ES and TDX[*] from
the get go, within reason obviously. From a code perspective, I don't think
it will be too onerous as the basic tenets are quite similar, e.g. guest
state is off limits, FPU state is autoswitched, etc..., but I suspect (or
maybe worry?) that there are enough minor differences that we'll want a more
generic way of marking ioctls() as disallowed to avoid having one-off checks
all over the place.

That being said, it may also be that there are some ioctls() that should be
disallowed under SEV-ES, but aren't in this series. E.g. I assume
kvm_vcpu_ioctl_smi() should be rejected as KVM can't do the necessary
emulation (I assume this applies to vanilla SEV as well?).

One thought to try and reconcile the differences between SEV-ES and TDX would
be expicitly list which ioctls() are and aren't supported and go from there?
E.g. if there is 95% overlap than we probably don't need to get fancy with
generic allow/deny.

Given that we don't yet have publicly available KVM code for TDX, what if I
generate and post a list of ioctls() that are denied by either SEV-ES or TDX,
organized by the denier(s)? Then for the ioctls() that are denied by one and
not the other, we add a brief explanation of why it's denied?

If that sounds ok, I'll get the list and the TDX side of things posted



 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-15 01:00    [W:0.337 / U:1.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site